• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You do know there were more military deaths under Clinton than have under Bush right?


Not to point out anything bad Clinton did, just that yes, troops sometimes die doing stupid ****......
Click to expand...

Please support that these deaths were from stupid stuff.
 
I think some of you guys are selling short the stress of deployment, particularly combat deployment. Ideally, yes, changing DADT shouldn't change anything. And realistically, even in a combat deployment, I don't think there would be an epidemic of gay murders or beatdowns that would affect our ability to fight. But I do think the number of cases would be higher, than if it were changed at a less tumultuos time. Its about how much of a price, would we be willing to pay for this social adjustment to our military. Either way, if we did it now or later, the change would ultimatley be for the better. It may just be a little bit safer, if its not done with our forces being on constant deployment to major combat areas. Those deployments are stressful, and I think alot of people outside the military don't quite grasp the gravity of that, and they certainley haven't witnessed the stupid things people have done(both silly and tragic) when deployed.
 
WI Crippler said:
I think some of you guys are selling short the stress of deployment, particularly combat deployment. Ideally, yes, changing DADT shouldn't change anything. And realistically, even in a combat deployment, I don't think there would be an epidemic of gay murders or beatdowns that would affect our ability to fight. But I do think the number of cases would be higher, than if it were changed at a less tumultuos time. Its about how much of a price, would we be willing to pay for this social adjustment to our military. Either way, if we did it now or later, the change would ultimatley be for the better. It may just be a little bit safer, if its not done with our forces being on constant deployment to major combat areas. Those deployments are stressful, and I think alot of people outside the military don't quite grasp the gravity of that, and they certainley haven't witnessed the stupid things people have done(both silly and tragic) when deployed.
Click to expand...

It's true, I haven't walked in those people's shoes who have been deployed.

How long will the war on terror last though? 50 years? It's supposed to be a long one.

There may be some growing pains for soldiers who can't handle the truth. I still wouldn't call this a social change. Gays are already serving as second class citizens.

How come no one is ever concerned about a closeted gay killing a homophobe?
 
RightinNYC said:
You're right. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it's equally wrong to discriminate based on sexual preference.
Click to expand...

Well call me silly but I would not want to shower with a gay men etc.

If they had facility's set up to separate us like the females during training, I would not have an issue with it.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Well, by the same virtue that a person can't change the color of their skin, a person can't change who they are attracted to.
Click to expand...

This is true, but you don't have to act on it. In the end you still have a choice. With race you have no choice.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It's true, I haven't walked in those people's shoes who have been deployed.

How long will the war on terror last though? 50 years? It's supposed to be a long one.

There may be some growing pains for soldiers who can't handle the truth. I still wouldn't call this a social change. Gays are already serving as second class citizens.

How come no one is ever concerned about a closeted gay killing a homophobe?
Click to expand...

I personally think, that Iraq may be done with(for the most part) within 2 years. Afghanistan might take a little longer, as there is alot less infrastructure to begin with there, as there was in Iraq. I could actually believe a scenario where we end up successful in Iraq and failing in Afghanistan, but thats a different story. I think in the next 4-5 years, most of our troops will be back to the pre-war "schedule", as I think there will need to be a small window where our military sits back and retools itself for modern threats. We are still very much a Cold War machine right now. I think during that "re-tooling" period, which I see coming soon, it would be the most opportune time to change DADT. However, I do agree that there is also the possibility that our forces could be kept to the grinder for a period of time to come. In that case I would say if we aren't out of major combat by then, then the longest we should wait is maybe 4 years. And the only reason I say wait 4 years, instead of just changing it now, is just to give us a chance to get out of major combat.

As for a closeted gay, killing a homophobe, people that are homophobic are really kind of picked on even more than guys who seem gay. Like I mentioned before, it can be homoerotic in the military, and when guys start talking about how they hate that "gay ****" or start calling guys fags and meaning it, they get it worse than anybody else.
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
How did you know they were gay?
Click to expand...

Because the Good Reverend is such a stud, EVERYONE hits on me....

Yeah, sometimes I can't believe its me either. ;)

How did they survive what with all of the people looking to shoot them in the back?
Click to expand...

Did I make that argument?


What is your beef with DADT if you already know who all the gay soldiers are?
Click to expand...


I am not following your question here nor your assumption that I knew who All of the gay soldiers where..

I know, you can tell. They don't write letters to girlfriends and wives right?


They don't have pictures of love interests around.

Let's just ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
Click to expand...



So you give me an argument I never made, then arguing it as if I hold said position?

Come now, You should know by now this won't get past the Good REverend! :mrgreen:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Please support that these deaths were from stupid stuff.
Click to expand...




For what purpose?





EDIT:

Let me correct myself:

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)




Anyway the point is, that during the "peacetime" that was the Clinton Administration, we had a lot of accidents, training mishaps, etc, that came from the gutting of the military and from down time mishaps.


Also note this is total casualties. War casualties are currently 4,222 which is less than Bill Clintons total. Irrellevant I know, but interesting.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
This is true, but you don't have to act on it. In the end you still have a choice. With race you have no choice.
Click to expand...

Well, then they are living in denial. I'm sure a person who is black could somehow be brainwashed to believe that they are actually white too. What's your point?
 
Blackdog said:
Well call me silly but I would not want to shower with a gay men etc.

If they had facility's set up to separate us like the females during training, I would not have an issue with it.
Click to expand...

If you've ever taken a gym class, played sports, or joined the military, you have showered with a gay man.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
For what purpose?





EDIT:

Let me correct myself:

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)




Anyway the point is, that during the "peacetime" that was the Clinton Administration, we had a lot of accidents, training mishaps, etc, that came from the gutting of the military and from down time mishaps.


Also note this is total casualties. War casualties are currently 4,222 which is less than Bill Clintons total. Irrellevant I know, but interesting.
Click to expand...

"Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to kill us, and neither do we." :lol:
 
Blackdog said:
Well call me silly but I would not want to shower with a gay men etc.

If they had facility's set up to separate us like the females during training, I would not have an issue with it.
Click to expand...

If you're in the military, you are trained to kill and face the possibility of being killed yourself. And you're worried about some guy staring at your junk in the shower? :2wave:

Sorry, that isn't a good enough reason to keep gays out of the military.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
For what purpose?





EDIT:

Let me correct myself:

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)




Anyway the point is, that during the "peacetime" that was the Clinton Administration, we had a lot of accidents, training mishaps, etc, that came from the gutting of the military and from down time mishaps.


Also note this is total casualties. War casualties are currently 4,222 which is less than Bill Clintons total. Irrellevant I know, but interesting.
Click to expand...

What is the source of that statistic? I'd like to see the methodology they used to determine what constitutes a "casualty." Those numbers all seem awfully high.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Because the Good Reverend is such a stud, EVERYONE hits on me....

Yeah, sometimes I can't believe its me either. ;)
Click to expand...

I didn't know you salsa.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Did I make that argument?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, maybe your argument was that they would daydream about having gay sex with the openly gay guy while on patrol.



Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I am not following your question here nor your assumption that I knew who All of the gay soldiers where..
Click to expand...

Dude, you bragged about knowing more gay people than I who have served honorably. But you are arguing that you shouldn't know. Somehow you knew, and I doubt that you were the only one, and you haven't shared an eyewitness account of these things you worry about.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So you give me an argument I never made, then arguing it as if I hold said position?

Come now, You should know by now this won't get past the Good REverend! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

How did you know they were gay?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I didn't know you salsa.
Click to expand...


Only with chips.

I'm sorry, maybe your argument was that they would daydream about having gay sex with the openly gay guy while on patrol.
Click to expand...

Nope....




Dude, you bragged about knowing more gay people than I who have served honorably. But you are arguing that you shouldn't know. Somehow you knew, and I doubt that you were the only one, and you haven't shared an eyewitness account of these things you worry about.
Click to expand...


Bragged? nah, I simply stated I knew a few that were denoting that what you speak of is not how it is..... ;)



How did you know they were gay?
Click to expand...




Not quite sure, but it was no secret, even to the few I knew. It wasn't that big of a deal.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Not quite sure, but it was no secret, even to the few I knew. It wasn't that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight:

There were gay people whom you served with in the military. You knew that they were gay. They didn't keep it a secret. And it wasn't that big of a deal.

So what exactly is your problem with ending DADT again? :confused:
 
Kandahar said:
So let me get this straight:

There were gay people whom you served with in the military. You knew that they were gay. They didn't keep it a secret. And it wasn't that big of a deal.

So what exactly is your problem with ending DADT again? :confused:
Click to expand...




I don't have a problem with it, I have a problem with the timing.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I don't have a problem with it, I have a problem with the timing.
Click to expand...

But you said that you already knew of gays in the military, it wasn't a secret, and it wasn't a big deal. Surely your situation was not unusual.

So nothing would change other than the official policy.
 
The only possible reason I see that would advocate DADT is if the advocating of homosexuality would cause a rift in military morale and effect our fighting forces thus effecting our national security.

Twenty years ago, maybe. What with all the homophobic bravado conditioned into our fighting forces. But today, not so. Our youth making up the majority of the armed forces have different, more tolerant, attitudes these days. I don't think doing away with DADT will bother them that much.

These days, practicaly everybody knows a gay person they respect and like. It's not like it used to be. Our youth today are MUCH smarter than the youth in previous generations and far more tolerable.

Who would you rather have working with you? A gay person or a red-neck homophobe? And there you have it.
 
Kandahar said:
But you said that you already knew of gays in the military, it wasn't a secret, and it wasn't a big deal. Surely your situation was not unusual.

So nothing would change other than the official policy.
Click to expand...




you are broadening my limited experience and applying it to group of a million people....


See the error in that?
 
Kandahar said:
What is the source of that statistic? I'd like to see the methodology they used to determine what constitutes a "casualty." Those numbers all seem awfully high.
Click to expand...

A casualty is generally considered any injury or condition that prevents one from doing military activities.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Well, then they are living in denial. I'm sure a person who is black could somehow be brainwashed to believe that they are actually white too. What's your point?
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. :roll:

My point is picking who you sleep with is not a race or remotely the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom